Lies Surrounding A Claim That UKIP NEC Members Dr. David Abbott & Dr. Eric Edmond Favoured Alliance between UKIP & The BNP & dishonesty in their removal from the NEC as with Richard Suchorzewski.

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

one has to wonder if some authors, be that media or book authors do any research or whether they just write the propaganda as it is fed to them!

Senior Ukip members ‘backed pact with BNP’

Proposal was canvassed among party’s National Executive Committee in 2008 according to a new book

Daniel Boffey, policy editor

Saturday 8 March 2014 16.29 GMT

Nigel FarageTwo members of Ukip considered forming a pact with the BNP five years ago but in 2008 Nigel Farage said the deal had been unanimously rejected. Photograph: Simon James/GC Images

A new book has revealed that Ukip considered forming a pact with the BNP six years ago, with two members of the party’s national executive committee at the time in favour of the idea.In 2008 Nigel Farage acknowledged that the BNP had proposed a deal for the European elections the following year, but insisted it had been unanimously rejected. Farage told reporters then: “I’m simply amazed that the BNP thought we would even consider such a thing.”

Now the new book, Revolt on the Right, by Dr Matthew Goodwin and Dr Robert Ford – called the most definitive account yet of the Ukip movement – reveals that the BNP’s proposal was canvassed among 17 members of the party’s NEC. Two members supported the proposal, it has emerged.

Farage, who said he had been against a pact, told the authors: “There were a lot of people saying to me at that time, ‘You’ve got to do a deal with them.’ I even had Tory MEPs saying to me, ‘Nigel, you’ve got to do a deal with these people.’ We were being beaten by them regularly in local elections. So there was huge pressure on me. The nature of the deal was the BNP would stand in some regions in the European elections in the north, and Ukip would stand in the south, and that would be the electoral pact: we wouldn’t oppose each other.”

Of the members who offered support for the pact, Farage said: “They were the angry old men of old Ukip who thought Ukip was doomed.”

The political predicament of Ukip in 2008 contrasts with its potential today, the authors say. In the book, published this week, they say the party has emerged from the crash with the potential to attract a third of the electorate.

Around 30% of voters are now believed to be both Eurosceptic and opposed to immigration, or Eurosceptic and politically dissatisfied, the defining themes for Ukip. Such sentiments are continuing to grow in strength among the electorate, according to the authors, who draw on the biggest pool of data so far amassed on the political movement.

The book provides evidence that the share of voters holding Eurosceptic views and at least one other radical right belief has increased by five to seven percentage points since 2008. Ukip is widely seen as not having a credible manifesto and has faced serious questions about the calibre of its MEPs, the authors note.

This weekend, the party was dogged by claims that it had misused EU funds in paying staff working in the UK. Yet Goodwin, from Nottingham University, and Ford, of Manchester University, say the “army of potential supporters for Ukip is growing in size” and is being aided by continued anger at Labour’s record and disaffection with the Tory leader.

They argue that Farage and Ukip face huge challenges in the first-past-the-post electoral system, and given the party’s continued unpopularity among women, ethnic minorities, graduates and the young. However, Ukip is now the favoured electoral option among those who strongly disapprove of the EU – 20% of all British voters.

Over the past three years, the party has also performed better than Labour among older, working-class voters and those who are struggling financially. The party is using tactics similar to those once successfully deployed by the Lib Dems, the authors say, in that they seek to deepen their vote in particular areas by getting into local councils and building strongholds.

It is claimed that, of the five constituencies where Ukip stands its best chance of general election success, four are Labour seats (Great Grimsby, Plymouth Moor View, Ashfield and Walsall North) and one is Tory (Waveney). The consistent feature in these areas is a splintering of the traditional vote and the existence of a large, older, blue-collar demographic.

The book suggests that the potential for Ukip’s rise can be clearly seen in societal changes that developed decades ago. The authors write: “Its seeds lay among groups of voters who struggled with the destabilising and threatening changes brought by deindustrialisation, globalisation and, later, European integration and mass immigration.”

The academics claim Farage is fusing three issues to make a coherent message: “Farage’s party now encourages voters to say ‘no’ three times: no to the Eurocrats in Brussels and Strasbourg; no to the politicians in Westminster; and no to immigration. This is not a grand ideological vision – there is no ‘Farageism’ – but it is a coherent and highly effective message.”

They add: “Ukip is not a second home for disgruntled Tories in the shires; it is a first home for disaffected working-class Britons of all political backgrounds who have lost faith in a political system that ceased to represent them long ago.”

On publication of the book Revolt on the Right I read it but found it was tedious and pretentious in the extreme and the reporting of this story in the article above was just as inaccurate as shown! The story put forward regarding the claim that an official approach from the BNP was made and was supported by two members of UKIP’s NEC is utter hogwash.

At the time I wrote numerous factually based and sourced articles regarding this even which I showed to be nothing more than Nigel Farage’s ‘Reichstag Fire’ event giving him an excuse for his own ‘Crystalnacht’.

Never have those who Farage and his clique identified who actually proposed a link with the BNP backed by a single fact.

Was it in fact Nigel Farage?

This photo shows Nigel Farage, Mark Deavin (who sat with UKIP NEC) and Tony LeComber (National Front & subsequently BNP Lecomber was convicted for criminal damage in 1982, offences under the Explosives Act in 1985, and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in 1991 for an attack on a Jewish teacher.)

It is widely believed that the photograph was taken after a lunch between the three in which the possibility of Nigel Farage joining the BNP with a view to leading the party as at the time Farage was not a member of UKIP having fallen out with his colleagues!

The NEC meeting referred to in the article, and in the rather sloppy book, was attended by arrangement, as a guest of Martin Hasslam, an attendee at the NEC at the behest of Nigel Farage, agreed to by Nigel Farage, by Buster Mottram, a Farage family friend who I understand was living with a relation of Nigel Farage’s and let us not forget that Nigel Farage, against widespread advice, enrolled and welcomed Buster Mottram as a favoured member of UKIP and as something of a personality and spokesman.

Buster Mottram presented a scenario of association with the BNP claiming he had the approval of the BNP leadership!

I am reliably advised that NO ONE elected to UKIP NEC was in favour of the suggested scenario, interestingly by dint of lies and inuendo, rumours and spin it was claimed by the ‘Farage faction’, a view promoted via certain liars amongst UKIP’s press staff, that two members of the elected NEC supported the suggestion – this was and is a lie.

The claimed, by inuendo, supporters were Dr. David Abbott and Dr. Eric Edmond, both of whom have sought clarification of the implied slur and have promised to sue Farage and any member of his odious clique who claims they have supported the BNP in this context. It is interesting to note that both Abbott & Edmond had actively campaigned for transparency in UKIP’s use and abuse of both tax payers’ money and that of UKIP donors – particularly in respect of the apparent scam of The Ashford Call Center and its ramifications where another elected member of the UKIP NEC Richard Suchozevski had proved that less than 15% of the money raised by ‘Ashford’ ever reached the Party!

Interestingly not only were Drs. Abbott and Edmond forced off of UKIP NEC by Farage’s cult but so also was Richard Suchorzewski, a position that was inevitable once he had, in campaigning for clarity and probity, asked 30 questions regarding UKIP accounts and use of donors’ and tax payers’ money, questions that Andrew Smith, treasurer at the time, was seemingly unable to answer and quit his position thereby avoiding the question leaving UKIP accounts in total disaray – seemingly with possibly £Millions unaccounted for.

I must apologise for not having posted this article when it was first published, but at the time I felt it was so shoddy, inaccurate and unchecked as to be irrelevant, as with the book quoted! I find that a subsequent article elsewhere made it relevant and therefore added the article with this comment on 10-May-2014.

Parliament says that between 1999 and 2008 it paid a total of just over €1m to a company called MP Holdings Ltd which listed as its directors Den Dover’s wife and daughter.

The money came from the allowance intended to pay the salaries and costs of a MEPs‘ staff and Dover’s company was supposed to administer it independently.

Questions about the arrangements started to be asked in 2006 but it was not until 2008 that parliament’s secretary general suggested that there was a conflict of interest and asked for details of the actual expenditure.

In October, the secretary general ruled that for the period August 1999 to June 2008 only €482,000 could be justified as having been paid in salaries, national insurance and legitimate staff travel expenses.

On Tuesday, a parliament spokesman told this website, “We will wait for the decision of the court. If the court supports parliament’s position, then parliament will continue steps to recover the funds from the former MEP.

“However, parliament has no powers to prosecute anyone.”

UK Liberal Democrat MEP Chris Davies has campaigned for more transparency in MEPs’ pay and allowances and has taken a particular interest in the Dover case.

Davies said, “I hope that most people elected to parliament know the difference between right and wrong, honourable and dishonourable behaviour, without having to have it laid down by law. But the fact is that some do not – as recent ‘cash for amendments’ – revelations suggest.“

He said the scale of abuse that “seems to have become common practice” amongst some MEPs was revealed in a secret report by parliament’s internal auditor in June 2008.

Davies said, “I was one of the few MEPs who had the chance, as a member of the budgetary control committee, to read the report in a sealed room.

“The report led to changes which have very significantly curbed the abuse of the secretarial allowance payments, but disgracefully, parliament is still requesting that the Court of Justice keeps the auditor’s report secret. This is ridiculous given that it can be found on the internet.

“So Den Dover might well feel very hard done by to have been fingered and chased by parliament when so many others seem to have got away with it.

“Indeed, I think he could have got away with it himself if he hadn’t tried to be clever and make payments through an ‘independent’ company.

“My interpretation of the rules that applied at the time is that he could have legitimately paid the entire allowance to his wife in her capacity as his secretary. She could have been the best paid secretary in the world but the payments wouldn’t have been challenged.”

He went on, “On Thursday we find out whether the court agrees that the financial abuse was flagrant and the money must be repaid.

“Alternatively, the court could just agree that the parliamentary rules were so lax for years that it would not be fair to demand retrospective repayments now.”

The case before the ECJ is administrative not criminal, but if Den Dover is required to repay the money does it end there?

“In Britain, MPs have gone to jail for wrongly claiming €22,000. What length of imprisonment would be justified by false claims for €573,000?”

Tomorrow is judgement day for former UK Conservative MEP Den Dover (North West region). The European Parliament is demanding that he repay £538,290 that it alleges was wrongly claimed by him between 1999 and 2008. He is contesting the decision and the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg is about to give its ruling.

The Parliament says that over this period it paid a total of £959,446 to a company called MP Holdings Ltd which had as directors Dover’s wife and daughter. The money came from the allowance intended to pay the salaries and costs of an MEPs’ staff, and the company was supposed to administer it independently and at arm’s length from the MEP, although it seems that Dover’s staff included his wife and daughter (part-time)

Questions about the arrangements started to be asked in 2006 but it was not until 2008 that the Parliament’s Secretary-General suggested that there was a conflict of interest and asked for details of the actual expenditure. In October the Secretary-General ruled that for the period August 1999 to June 2008 only £421,156 could be justified as having been paid in salaries, national insurance and legitimate staff travel expenses.

So what does the Parliament consider was illegitimate expenditure?

£101,068 for three cars

£15,404 for office supplies and equipment, £89,235 for postage and stationery, £100,735 for the costs of rent and renovation of Den Dover’s ‘office’, which just happened to be in his private home, and £20,767 for telephone costs (MEPs get a separate allowance for all these office expenses, and none of them are supposed to be paid from the staff budget)

£17,880 for ‘entertainment expenses’

And (just) £200 in donations to the Conservative Party (!!!).

The Parliament says that the rest of the money it wants back represents the costs of VAT that the company apparently failed to pay to the UK’s HMRC.

Dover’s defence seems mainly be to challenge the figures, claim that the Parliament should prove that the money was wrongly spent rather than force him to prove that it was properly used, and declare that the European Parliament had never made absolutely clear that MEPs might have to produce evidence of how the money had been spent. He says that the Parliament went along with the arrangements for years without challenging them or suggesting that procedures needed to be tightened.

I hope that most people elected to the European Parliament know the difference between right and wrong, honourable and dishonourable behaviour, without having to have it laid down by law. But the fact is that some do not – as recent ‘Cash for Amendments’ – revelations suggest.

The scale of abuse that seems to have become common practice amongst some MEPs was revealed in a secret report by the Parliament’s internal auditor in June 2008.

The report led to changes which have very significantly curbed the abuse of the secretarial allowance payments, but disgracefully the Parliament is still requesting that the Court of Justice keeps the auditor’s report secret – ridiculous given that it can be found on the internet.

So Dover might well feel very hard done by to have been fingered and chased by the Parliament when so many others seem to have got away with it. Indeed, I think he could have got away with it himself if he hadn’t tried to be clever and make payments through an ‘independent’ company.

Tomorrow we find out whether the Court agrees that the financial abuse was flagrant and the money must be repaid, or whether it agrees that the parliamentary rules were so lax for years that it would not be fair to demand retrospective repayments now – in which case there may be many MEPs who will wonder why we stuck not only by the rules but by the principles of financial transparency and honesty when we could have just pocketed £100,000 or two every year as some cheating bastards did.

I wonder if Nigel Farage will be considered liable under the same rules having dishonestly and corruptly paid a family member around £30,000 a year, put a block entry in his constituency office of £211,000 for office sundries, which amounted to over 50% of the expenses and paid £6,000 to have an accountant sign off the books which were fully drawn up. Condoned and colluded in the payment of around £250,000 from a UKIP enterprise into a private bank account, paid £250,000 into one of his own off shore banks in a single cheque – the list of, if not criminal, downright suspicious transfers of money in a clandestine manner is far from short!

Then of course there was the claim made as a boast to Denis McShane regarding personal profit over and above his salary and incurred expenses that he would guess he had trousered around £2 Million at that stage.

There is of course the detail of the fact that at the time Nigel Farage claimed that the various apparent scams he was involved in regarding Ashford Employment, in its various ‘guises’, that it was THE most profitable activity UKIP had ever engaged in – meanwhile The Chairman of UKIP at the time David Bannerman, claimed that less than 15% of the money raised had ever reached UKIP’s account!

No doubt were he honest Douglas Denny could throw much light on this, as he would seem to be patsy for much of the fantasies that surround UKIP accounts, having been for a period Party Secretary and the Treasurer for Nigel Farage’s EU Region. Sadly we are unlikely to get any honest answers from Douglas Denny who has a long track record of dishonesty, fantasy and abuse.

Was the truth behind what seems to be outright scams within UKIP – including the various rip offs and failure to account 100s of £1,000 of tax payers money in Petitions that were never held yet were provided with tax payers’ money and various other scams that would seem to have been funded by UKIP members unwittingly.

Was this the reason why Nigel Farage deliberately engineered the removal of Martin Hasslam which coincidentally involved Nigel Farage’s family friend and in fact protege in UKIP Buster Motrom.

The amount of quite blatant money laundering that has involved what seems very clearly to be a criminal element that have control of the leadership of UKIP is to those of us who had hoped for probity and integrity of UKIP, quite shamefull.

Break ins, thefts from offices, trousering of public money, false witness, lies about elected members and deliberate smear campaigns, desperate attemts by the filth gathered as leadership to try to defame me – all of which have spectacularly failed as not one single fact I have published in 1,000s of postings has EVER been proven wron, dishonest or misleading – then there is the harrassment and abuse of members who seek answers and a relatively indifferent police force seemingly too bone idle to investigate the thefts and fiddles of these politicians and their parasites..